Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap preoperative planning: A comparative analysis between dynamic infrared thermography, computerized tomography angiography, and hand‐held Doppler

• Published in: Microsurgery Vol. 42; no. 7; pp. 649 - 658
• Main Authors: Sonda, Regina, Pandis, Laura, Bassetto, Franco, Marchica, Paolo, Messana, Francesco, Tiengo, Cesare, Andres, Anto Luigi, Brambullo, Tito, Vindigni, Vincenzo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.10.2022; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Angiography; Breast cancer; Comparative analysis; Computed tomography; Contrast media; Dirt; Hemodynamics; Infrared analysis; Infrared imaging; Ionizing radiation; Mapping; Medical imaging; Statistical analysis; Thermography; Tomography
• ISSN: 0738-1085; 1098-2752
• DOI: 10.1002/micr.30927

Introduction Hand‐held Doppler (HHD) sonography and computerized tomography angiography (CTA) are the common assessment tools for deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap preoperative planning. CTA is considered the gold standard method for preoperative perforator mapping but necessitates contrast medium and X‐ray exposure. Dynamic infrared thermography (DIRT) does not have these drawbacks and allows the detection of hot and cold spots on a given body area. Our study aimed to compare DIRT, HHD, and CTA in perforator mapping for breast reconstruction using DIEP flap. Patients and Methods From March to September 2020, 12 consecutive patients scheduled for DIEP flap breast reconstruction were preoperatively investigated with HHD, CTA, and DIRT. The patients' mean age was 53 and the mean BMI was 29.23 kg/m2. All the reconstructions were due to breast cancer. The results of preoperative perforator mapping on the lower abdomen were compared among the three techniques. All the evidence was compared to the intraoperative findings, during flap harvesting, to establish if the techniques were able to correctly locate the perforator. Results We detected 178 perforators intraoperatively, 178 with CTA, 178 with DIRT, and 125 with HHD. The latter revealed a lower number of perforator vessels for each patient (10.42 ± 3.58), compared with CTA (14.83 ± 3.04) and DIRT (14.83 ± 4.76). DIRT resulted superior to HHD (p < .05), while no statistically significant difference (p > .05) was found between DIRT and CTA. We calculated a mean sensitivity of 93.87% for CTA, 69.02% for HHD, and 92.06% for DIRT. Conclusion DIRT is a useful tool in the preoperative planning of DIEP flaps, as it provides information about the location of perforators and the hemodynamic properties of angiosomes. It is easy to use, and it does not involve ionizing radiation. DIRT could represent an innovative and promising implementation of CTA and HHD techniques for preoperative perforator mapping in DIEP breast reconstruction.